calljdku912fandomcom-20200214-history
Technological literacy and ethical issue/m. fatahpour
=Techmological literacy and ethical issued= the definition of technology literacy is much richer and more complex because there is more information available than ever before. And the tools for finding, using and creating information are rapidly becoming more diverse and sophisticated. The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) defines technology literacy as the ability to responsibly use appropriate technology to: *Communicate *Solve problems *Access, manage, integrate, evaluate, design and create information to improve learning in all subject areas *Acquire lifelong knowledge and skills in the 21st century · ENGINEERING FOR ALL · The National Center for Technological Literacy® (NCTL®) has been helping to educate children and adults in a variety of educational settings since 2004. This Museum of Science, Boston initiative is active nationwide via partnerships that seek to raise awareness and understanding of engineering in schools and museums. One of the world's largest science centers and New England's most attended cultural institution, the Museum is ideally positioned to lead the nationwide effort, bringing Now the definition of technology literacy is much richer and more complex because there is more information available than ever before. And the tools for finding, using and creating information are rapidly becoming more diverse and sophisticated. The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) defines technology literacy as the ability to responsibly use appropriate technology to: *Communicate *Solve problems *Access, manage, integrate, evaluate, design and create information to improve learning in all subject areas *Acquire lifelong knowledge and skills in the 21st century Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology, commonly called STL, andAdvancing Excellence in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional Development, and Program Standards, commonly called AETL, are companion publications that together articulate* a complete set of technological literacy standards* and identify a vision* for developing a technologically literate citizenry. STL identifies content* necessary for K—12 students, including knowledge*, abilities, and the capacity to apply both to the real world. The standards in STL were built around a cognitive* base as well as a doing/activity* base. They include assessment* checkpoints at specific grade levels (K—2, 3—5, 6—8, and 9—12). STLarticulates what needs to be taught in K—12 laboratory-classrooms* to enable all students to develop technological literacy. The goal* is to meet all of the standards through the benchmarks* which are included inSTL. Standards are written statements about what is valued that can be used for making a judgment of quality.STL is NOT a curriculum. AETL identifies the means for the implementation* of STL in K—12 laboratory-classrooms. AETL contains three separate but interrelated sets of standards: student assessment* practices to be used by teachers, professional development* to assure effective* and continuous* in-service* and pre-service* education for teachers of technology, and detailed program* standards that delineate educational requirements used to promote the development of technological literacy. For information regarding the development of STL and AETL, visit Phase II and Phase III respectively in the TfAAP History section. When this page was archived (January 2006) STL had been translated into Finnish, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, and German. The translations could be viewed by visiting the web site of the relevant ITEA International Center. Links to the ITEA International Centers could be accessed by resting the cursor on the About ITEA link in the ITEA navigation on the left side of this page (near the top), and clicking the link labeled ITEA International Centers in the fly out menu LITERATURE ON TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY Many people have written on the subject of technological literacy, all of whom are to be commended for their efforts to describe the complexities of the individual who is literate in technology. Hayden (1989), after a literature review, takes the position that technological literacy is having knowledge and abilities to select and apply appropriate technologies in a given context. While not revealing the source of his thoughts, Steffens (1986, p. 117-118) claims that technological literacy involves knowledge and comprehension of technology and its uses; skills, including tool skills as well as evaluation skills; and, attitudes about new technologies and their application. This insight is similar to that of Owen and Heywood (1986) who say there are three components to technological literacy: the technology of making things; the technology of organization; and, the technology of using information. Applying a Delphi technique to opinions expressed by experts, Croft (1991) evolved a panel of characteristics of a technologically literate student. Those are: abilities to make decisions about technology; possession of basic literacy skills required to solve technology problems; ability to make wise decisions about uses of technology; ability to apply knowledge, tools and skills for the benefit of society; and, ability to describe the basic technology systems of society. Johnson (1989) conceives of technological literacy to be subsumed under scientific literacy with the former type of person having an understanding of the generation of new technology, its control and its uses. The 1991 Yearbook of the Council on Technology Teacher Education is devoted entirely to the subject of technological literacy. This volume examines technological literacy from a variety of angles: its need, as a goal, as a concept, as a program, societal factors influencing it, and in terms of curriculum organization. In this volume Todd (1991, p. 10) says, "Technological literacy is a term of little meaning and many meanings." Later in the same text (p. 11) he makes the statement, "Currently we are unsure whether we are using technological literacy to represent a slogan, a concept, a goal, or a program." The observation has merit. The literature on technological literacy (going far beyond the sources quoted above) seems to place emphasis on conceptual material, e.g., understandings, knowledge, decision making, etc., and much less emphasis on tool skills, shaping materials, and modeling. This observation, if valid, makes one wonder how so little in the way of praxis could possibly describe a technologically literate person when the RAISON D'ETRE of technology education is the use of tools, machines and materials. A second inference to be drawn from the literature is the absence of recog- nition that until technology education has defined its intellectual domain, it is fruitless to try to describe a technologically literate person. The exception to this observation is the opinion expressed by Lewis and Gagel (1992, p. 136) who say, "...to further the goal of technological literacy, schools would seem to have two clear responsibilities; first, to articulate the disciplinary structure of technology and, second, to provide for its authentic expression in the curriculum." The remark is squarely on target and deserves further comment. INTELLECTUAL DOMAIN AND TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY When one thinks carefully about technological literacy, it is easy to recognize it as an outcome measure. That is, it comes as a result of what is in the curriculum and methods used by the teacher to impart the curriculum. But from whence comes the curriculum? From individual teacher whimsy? From the opinions of an "expert"? The proper answer is that "...the inherent structure of any discipline is the only proper source of learning content; ..." (Inlow, p. 15,emphasis added). Does technology education have a structured body of knowledge, of organizing concepts, of underlying ideas and fundamental principles that define it as an academic discipline? It does not. And because it doesn't, it follows that there is no valid way of determining curriculum content. "If that be true, how can we even hope that technological literacy will be achieved by students if technology education has no structured domain of knowledge. They could not." (Waetjen, p. 8) As a profession, technology education has been preoccupied with the concept of technological literacy -or so it seems, judging by the wealth of literature of the subject. If that same amount of thought and energy had been directed to defining technology education as an academic discipline, it would be far better off as a profession. It is interesting to speculate whether technology education would have higher prestige if that had happened; or, if fewer technology education programs would have been eliminated. The precursor to the pursuit of the holy grail of technological literacy is for technology education to take concrete steps to establish itself as an academic discipline. It will take more than strong statements or hastily conceived position papers. Those would serve only to make technology education "an enterprise of methodical guessing", to use Bertrand Russell's words. To become an academic discipline, technology education must specify four things. First, it will have to identify an intellectual domain consisting of a body of credible organized knowledge that is unique, is related to man's concerns in living, and is an array of ideas related in sequential fashion. Second, an academic discipline has a history of the organizing concepts that constitute its domain. Third, there must be a clear delineation of the modes of inquiry by which the discipline validates itself, creates new knowledge, and advances as a discipline. Finally, an academic discipline must be instructive; curriculum content must derive from its intellectual domain. (For a fuller discussion of these four elements, see Waetjen, 1992). Had technology education directed its efforts to the above four elements, it would be on far firmer intellectual ground in its debates and writings on technological literacy. It is not possible to define technological literacy, or measure it, in the absence of an agreed upon intellectual domain for technology education. Technology Ethical Considerations As technology changes and impacts the practice of law, how does it affect the scope of liability for our actions? At what point does technological advancement cease to be merely our preference, but instead mandated by our ethical obligations as lawyers? Do we have an obligation to use e-mail, incorporate automated legal and non-legal research, document assembly, full text search systems, and the latest document imaging? If technology is available at a low cost to search a deposition in seconds for key testimony, is it unethical to charge your client for the hours it takes you to do it manually? These are becoming difficult questions as we transition into the technology age. The recurring question is, have our actions been reasonable in light of the changing technology environment? Once we begin using technology, whole new sets of ethical issues arise. For example, is it ethically proper to use e-mail without encryption? What is the impact of participating and providing advice in newsgroups, chatrooms and listservs? Should we use cookies as we surf the web for case information? Are there sniffers or spoofers on your system? Are you providing adequate safeguards for on-line attempts to infiltrate your computer system? What about off-line safeguards such as undoing the UNDELETE command on your files created in a word processor. These are a few of the issues that are arising as we transition to a digital practice from an analog system. Attorneys frequently encounter issues implicating ethical and professional considerations in the application and non-application of technology in their practices. The framework for the law guiding the conduct of attorneys consists of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (adopted by the ABA in 1983 to replace the Model Code of Professional Responsibility and adopted by the majority of states), the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility (adopted by the ABA in 1969 and still followed in the minority of jurisdictions), the opinions of ethics advisory committees of the ABA and the states, and the decisions of federal and state courts concerning professional . Top of Form Bottom of Form